Comparison of 3D-printed and thermoformed orthoses for trigger finger: a pilot study

The conventional finger orthotic fabrication process is artisanal, based on thermoforming, while 3D printing is an emerging approach aimed at improving patient comfort and the accessibility of these devices. This study aimed to compare satisfaction with thermoformed and 3D-printed orthotics for trigger finger and perceptions of the two fabrication methods among potential users in training. Twenty occupational therapy students learned to make both types of orthotics, then each wore them for 24 h. User satisfaction with both orthotics was measured using the QUEST 2.0 questionnaire, and other factors (ease, competence, training, motivation, usefulness) were measured via an in-house questionnaire. The practical aspects (cost, production time) were also evaluated. All outcomes were compared between the two orthosis types (thermoformed and 3D-printed) using Student’s t-tests for parametric data or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for nonparametric data. The 3D-printed orthotics were superior to the thermoformed ones: user overall satisfaction was higher (total QUEST score (36.2 ± 3.7 vs. 32.0 ± 5.5; p = 0.005)), and direct labour time was shorter (3.4 ± 1.0 min vs. 5.8 ± 2.6 min; p < 0.001). The perceived usefulness of the technology was high (8.2 ± 1.5/10). The acceptability of the fabrication method was similar for both. The study supports the integration of digital technology into orthotic fabrication in rehabilitation and paves the way for clinical trials. 3D printing of orthotics could improve the patient care experience while optimizing the manufacturing process. Not applicable.